Zone1 Kristan Hawkins Crushes Arguments Of Pro-Choicer

[Road Runner]

It seems to me that the "argument" is not much of one because they don't really seem to have any good debating points. I'm curious how the other pro-choicers on here will respond to this.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Yeah, I find it generally unnecessary to falsely acknowledge the ramblings of pro-aborts as “arguments” since they don’t usually have any and their knowledge of the facts is nonexistent.

Case in point, this woman is calling other human beings “clumps of cells” while not acknowledging that she is likewise just an aggregate of cells. You can infer that this person believes in abortion for any reason up to birth and thinks a full-term ready to be born kiddo is still just a “clump of cells,” and she doesn’t know any physiological milestones, she’s “not a scientist.” You don’t have to be a scientist by profession to be scientifically literate, you don’t have to be a mathematician to be able to do algebra, etc.

 

[Road Runner]

Yeah, I find it generally unnecessary to falsely acknowledge the ramblings of pro-aborts as “arguments” since they don’t usually have any and their knowledge of the facts is nonexistent.

Case in point, this woman is calling other human beings “clumps of cells” while not acknowledging that she is likewise just an aggregate of cells. You can infer that this person believes in abortion for any reason up to birth and thinks a full-term ready to be born kiddo is still just a “clump of cells,” and she doesn’t know any physiological milestones, she’s “not a scientist.” You don’t have to be a scientist by profession to be scientifically literate, you don’t have to be a mathematician to be able to do algebra, etc.

In other words it's the same old same old story,.. pro-aborts don't know what they're talking about and they just start rambling and trying to make up arguments because they don't care about the consequences that they created when choosing to have unprotected sex.




They also try to claim that rape and incest is an excuse to punish their unborn child for something they could not control instead of adopting them out if they don't feel like they want to or are able to take on the responsibility of raising them themselves and the excuse of if the mother's life is in danger is a poor excuse too, because a true mother would sacrifice their own life to save their child's. I know I would. Sure in these circumstances abortion is more forgiving, but it shouldn't be what they resort to when there are other options.

 

[alang1216]

It seems to me that the "argument" is not much of one because they don't really seem to have any good debating points. I'm curious how the other pro-choicers on here will respond to this.

Speaking for myself, I don't see a fertilized egg as a person with legal rights that trump those of the mother, a person by any definition. What I take issue with is using science to establish morality. Science is amoral and the decision of a mother to have an abortion is a moral one, not a scientific one.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Speaking for myself, I don't see a fertilized egg as a person

I don’t either, considering no oviparous species with sapience exist.

We’re talking about humans though, here fam.

We don’t lay eggs.

legal rights that trump those of the mother

Again, this isn’t a problem or concern since banning abortion isn’t a matter of anyone’s rights trumping other rights. No one’s rights are violated by banning this human rights violation.

 

[initforme]

Preventing conception of unwanted pregnancies is key to our nation. Why are both sides not promoting contraception to every last female?

 

[Road Runner]

Why are both sides not promoting contraception to every last female?

Isn't that birth control?

 

[alang1216]

I don’t either, considering no oviparous species with sapience exist.

We’re talking about humans though, here fam.

We don’t lay eggs.

All mammals lay eggs, they just keep them internally during development. A fertilized egg is just DNA, much like the DNA of every other creature, with some chemicals that are also just like those in every other creature. No brain, no senses, nothing that makes humans unique and valuable. Yet.

Again, this isn’t a problem or concern since banning abortion isn’t a matter of anyone’s rights trumping other rights. No one’s rights are violated by banning this human rights violation.

Except the mother's. If it is a case of the life of the mother or the life of the fetus, which side would you take?

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

All mammals lay eggs, they just keep them internally during development.

…. No. Viviparous organisms do not “lay eggs.” Mammalian ovulation is not “laying eggs.”

A fertilized egg is just DNA

In mammals a “fertilized egg” is a fictional concept, so define it however you like. Feel free to talk about unicorns and dragons next. Let us know when you’re back to talking on-point and on-topic about reality here on Earth.

Except the mother's. If it is a case of the life of the mother or the life of the fetus, which side would you take?

Moot point. This doesn’t happen. Not just rarely, it just doesn’t happen. These general sorts of scenarios are rare to begin with.

You save the lives you can save. If mom is dead no matter what but you can save the kid, save the kid. If the kid is dead no matter what, save the mom. If it’s still in the realm of possibility to save both, try until that is not the case and then see above.

 

[alang1216]

…. No. Viviparous organisms do not “lay eggs.” Mammalian ovulation is not “laying eggs.”

Semantics.

In mammals a “fertilized egg” is a fictional concept, so define it however you like. Feel free to talk about unicorns and dragons next. Let us know when you’re back to talking on-point and on-topic about reality here on Earth.

Looks real to me.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Semantics.

It’s manipulative word games on the part of pro-aborts, yes. You people want to use dehumanizing, unscientific language or maliciously employ disinformation in order to promote your bigotry.

Humans are not eggs. The egg cell is gone after fertilization, the sperm cell is gone after fertilization. Call the human being you are discussing what they are: a human being in a particular stage of life.

 

[alang1216]

It’s manipulative word games on the part of pro-aborts, yes. You people want to use dehumanizing, unscientific language or maliciously employ disinformation in order to promote your bigotry.

Humans are not eggs. The egg cell is gone after fertilization, the sperm cell is gone after fertilization. Call the human being you are discussing what they are: a human being in a particular stage of life.

I believe the anti-aborts want to cloak the discussion in biology but, to me at least, it is a question of values. Is the value of a collection of DNA more valuable than the right of a woman to not have to carry an unwanted pregnancy.

We make value judgements on the question of human life all the time and science is of not help. Is euthanasia acceptable, is capital punishment acceptable, is not allowing a human being to get needed surgery or healthcare for economic reasons, should we drop bombs on a city in wartime knowing some innocent lives will be lost, etc.?

 

[Hellbilly]

I'm curious how the other pro-choicers on here will respond to this.

Like this. If you get pregnant and it ends up being ectopic, you either get an abortion or you die,

 

[hadit]

I believe the anti-aborts want to cloak the discussion in biology but, to me at least, it is a question of values. Is the value of a collection of DNA more valuable than the right of a woman to not have to carry an unwanted pregnancy.

We make value judgements on the question of human life all the time and science is of not help. Is euthanasia acceptable, is capital punishment acceptable, is not allowing a human being to get needed surgery or healthcare for economic reasons, should we drop bombs on a city in wartime knowing some innocent lives will be lost, etc.?

"Collection of DNA". See below for my response to that. Let's look at this. Is a "Collection of DNA" more valuable than a woman not wanting to complete a pregnancy? On its face, it looks like no. When you rephrase to be more accurate, though, things change. Is a developing baby's life more valuable than a woman's inconvenience who can give that baby away to a couple who desperately wants one? Also, we applaud a woman who violently destroys her developing baby a month before birth because she decides she's "not ready to be a mother", but we put her in prison if she violently destroys her growing baby a month after birth because she decides she's "not ready to be a mother".

If we could at least have an honest agreement that the unborn is a full-blown human being at an early stage of life, then we could have an honest discussion on the relative value of that life and the price we're willing to pay in order to destroy it. Yes, we put value on human lives all the time. Heck, we accept the loss of tens of thousands every year just because we want to drive fast.

But as long as pro-aborts insist on cloaking the practice behind rhetoric, they're not being honest. You can see video of someone getting stomach surgery on virtually any of the TV shows dedicated to extreme obesity. You can see someone get cut open and massive growths removed on Dr Pimple Popper. You can see blood and gore and mangled body parts on many shows devoted to the ER. But you don't see shows devoted to aborting a 2nd trimester baby because the mother didn't know she was pregnant until then. You don't see the body parts being pulled out and re-assembled on the tray to make sure they're all there, then tagged and bagged for sale or tossed into an incinerator. You don't hear the screams when an abortion is botched and the baby is born alive, only to die in agony from neglect.

There's a reason for that, and pro-aborts know it. That's why they have to sanitize it as much as possible.

 

[alang1216]

"Collection of DNA". See below for my response to that. Let's look at this. Is a "Collection of DNA" more valuable than a woman not wanting to complete a pregnancy? On its face, it looks like no. When you rephrase to be more accurate, though, things change. Is a developing baby's life more valuable than a woman's inconvenience who can give that baby away to a couple who desperately wants one?

Is that fertilized egg or zygote, if you prefer, a person whose right to be in a womb out weighs its host's rights? Once that developing life develops a brain and senses that make it recognizably unique in the animal kingdom then I might agree with you. Until then it is just some human tissue that you'd need a well stocked lab to determine what species it is.

Also, we applaud a woman who violently destroys her developing baby a month before birth because she decides she's "not ready to be a mother", but we put her in prison if she violently destroys her growing baby a month after birth because she decides she's "not ready to be a mother".

I doubt that woman was ever applauded or should have been. I suspect no legit doc would assist either.

If we could at least have an honest agreement that the unborn is a full-blown human being at an early stage of life, then we could have an honest discussion on the relative value of that life and the price we're willing to pay in order to destroy it. Yes, we put value on human lives all the time. Heck, we accept the loss of tens of thousands every year just because we want to drive fast.

So what is 'an early stage of life'? If you say conception, I would disagree. If you say at some point between conception and birth, I would agree.

But as long as pro-aborts insist on cloaking the practice behind rhetoric, they're not being honest. You can see video of someone getting stomach surgery on virtually any of the TV shows dedicated to extreme obesity. You can see someone get cut open and massive growths removed on Dr Pimple Popper. You can see blood and gore and mangled body parts on many shows devoted to the ER. But you don't see shows devoted to aborting a 2nd trimester baby because the mother didn't know she was pregnant until then. You don't see the body parts being pulled out and re-assembled on the tray to make sure they're all there, then tagged and bagged for sale or tossed into an incinerator. You don't hear the screams when an abortion is botched and the baby is born alive, only to die in agony from neglect.

There's a reason for that, and pro-aborts know it. That's why they have to sanitize it as much as possible.

I think we all know it is an ugly and tragic process but so is growing up a disabled, neglected, or unwanted child.

 

[2aguy]

It seems to me that the "argument" is not much of one because they don't really seem to have any good debating points. I'm curious how the other pro-choicers on here will respond to this.

I think another great way to argue this is a show called, "Long Lost Family," where people who were allowed to be born, but adopted out, or even held by the state, meet their mothers and vice versa....great show, and it demonstrates that life is the best answer.....these people meet their mothers and fathers because they were allowed to be born....

 

[2aguy]

Is that fertilized egg or zygote, if you prefer, a person whose right to be in a womb out weighs its host's rights? Once that developing life develops a brain and senses that make it recognizably unique in the animal kingdom then I might agree with you. Until then it is just some human tissue that you'd need a well stocked lab to determine what species it is.


I doubt that woman was ever applauded or should have been. I suspect no legit doc would assist either.


So what is 'an early stage of life'? If you say conception, I would disagree. If you say at some point between conception and birth, I would agree.


I think we all know it is an ugly and tragic process but so is growing up a disabled, neglected, or unwanted child.

I think we all know it is an ugly and tragic process but so is growing up a disabled, neglected, or unwanted child.

Yeah.....we know this because the German socialists felt the same way in the 1930s....

 

[2aguy]

I believe the anti-aborts want to cloak the discussion in biology but, to me at least, it is a question of values. Is the value of a collection of DNA more valuable than the right of a woman to not have to carry an unwanted pregnancy.

We make value judgements on the question of human life all the time and science is of not help. Is euthanasia acceptable, is capital punishment acceptable, is not allowing a human being to get needed surgery or healthcare for economic reasons, should we drop bombs on a city in wartime knowing some innocent lives will be lost, etc.?

Is allowing a human to live more important than the ability of a woman to kill it?

 

[marvin martian]

It seems to me that the "argument" is not much of one because they don't really seem to have any good debating points. I'm curious how the other pro-choicers on here will respond to this.

They're not "pro-choice", they're pro-abortion.

 

[alang1216]

Is allowing a human to live more important than the ability of a woman to kill it?

Depends on the circumstances. If that woman is flying a US bomber and that human being lives next to an al Qaida terrorist in Afghanistan, I'd say it is tragic but the answer is no. If that human is a day-old, fertilized egg the mother doesn't want to gestate for 9 months and then give birth to, I'd say it is tragic but the answer is no.